Post navigation

250 comments on “#JeSuisUnHebdonist”

You will print the cartoons, but the Guardian won’t. They gave their editorial pages to the Islamists. They would be still if they didn’t eventually clue on what nutters they were.

Nor will we track down the people who did this and punish them. Even if the French manage to catch them, they will get some token punishment. They may do a decade in a Four Star Hotel, and then they will go back to Morocco or wherever as heroes.

They will be free to recruit and inspire more attacks. Even from prison. These humorists are dead. No one will draw any more such cartoons.

“The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
— President Barack Obama

This comes off the back of several attacks by Islamists across the country, which were played down by politicians as being “lone wolf” attacks (although strangely similar in execution and motive). And we only need to look last month to Australia, where Muslim groups – ably assisted by idiot lefties – rushed to make it all about their feelings, and their fears of a non-existant backlash in a campaign that started when both hostages were still alive. if the French and other politicians don’t start taking this a bit more seriously, and stop pretending these cunts can be appeased if only we comply with their demands, then in a generation we’re going to have a lot more Anders Breviks.

Tim Newman – “And we only need to look last month to Australia, where Muslim groups – ably assisted by idiot lefties – rushed to make it all about their feelings, and their fears of a non-existant backlash in a campaign that started when both hostages were still alive.”

Let’s see how long it takes for some useful idiot to come out with the usual demand that the poor Muslims are protected from an utterly non-existent backlash.

“if the French and other politicians don’t start taking this a bit more seriously, and stop pretending these cunts can be appeased if only we comply with their demands, then in a generation we’re going to have a lot more Anders Breviks.”

Well, Marie Le Pen will be elected first. A few more of these attacks and she will romp home.

It’s like a Pavolvian response; no matter the circumstances or the barbarity, the same tropes are wheeled out: nothing to do with Islam, a lone wolf (four of them in this case); fear of backlash (which has never actually happened, not even close); it’s the fault of the police/security services for not foreseeing it.

After the unusually strong response to the Sony hacking, I wonder what will happen after this? A bit of hot air, heavily qualified with obsequious references to Islam, is my guess.

I’ve seen some of the left response on my facebook wall. Apparently one is to show solidarity with the dead victims but not the publication as its racist. Oh and already solidarity is already given to French Muslims as obviously they are the victims here.

Next time Israel bombs gaza I shall declare solidarity with French Jews as they are the real victims and not the people being blown up. Backlash logic and all that.

It’s alright talking about putting people on trial & sentences for life. Treating this as a crime.
Is treating it as a crime appropriate?
Would arresting a Heinkel crew for unauthorised flying in regulated airspace & possession of illegal firearms been appropriate?
It’s alright the authorities treating it as a crime > punishment issue. But there’s a whole subscript of respect for the law, deterrence, even the notion of “punishment”- the legal route’s based on – simply doesn’t have any meaning to these people.
They see it as a war. Whole different thing.

@TimN
“This lot tried to escape, whereas others would have blown themselves up. That suggests they’re not as keen on death as their peers elsewhere.”

That’s sounds dangerously simplistic. Like saying the crew of a Japanese bomber were less of a threat than a kamikazi pilot. The bomber crew get the chance for another mission.
It’s ignoring, the purpose of the action is to cause maximum damage. That the people doing it are rational & have rational aims.

You can’t import millions of highly fertile barbarians and expect to maintain a civilised society.

Welfare goodies makes it worse – it reduces the incentive for immigrant populations to adopt the mores and customs of their hosts.

By subsidising barbarians to do nothing but make babies and think of ways to take their resentments out on the country stupid enough to house and feed them, the civilised man is merely raising a brood of adversaries in his midst.

The long term – and I think the long term is closer than most think – options for dealing with barbarians are:

* civilise them, or
* expel them, or
* capitulate to them

I don’t think we have any realistic hope of great success with the first option.

Now, as for the Islamists. I don’t get the sense that they have a strategy. If they did, they’d refrain from these sort of murders.

For every action there is a reaction. They’re gradually training the European population – beheading by beheading, bombing by bombing, rape gang by rape gang – to see them as an intolerable threat. And to be desensitised to the reprisals coming.

Even the Germans are starting to discover their balls.

When you terrorise people, you should expect terror to be visited on you in return. Murdering agents of the State is particularly stupid. A government may make excuses when some troublesome journalists are killed, but it will not long tolerate its own forces being slaughtered – or it won’t remain the government.

Show the perpetrators the same mercy they showed their victims. There are only so many times the other cheek can be turned. This act today was not a civilian crime but an act of vengeance against the tenet of free speech. A tenet which our society purports to hold dear – thus an expedient demise of the perpetrators is both relevant and welcome.

If the fundamentalists assume the Europeans will be pacifist forever, they’re in for an unpleasant surprise.

I say this as someone who has no desire to see anybody – Muslim or Christian or atheist or whatever – subjected to unpleasantness. I’d much rather everybody get along and worship or not worship whatever they like. The religious wars of the 16th and 17th century were retarded. The conflict in Northern Ireland was stupid and pointless.

Henry Crun said: “This act today was not a civilian crime but an act of vengeance against the tenet of free speech. A tenet which our society purports to hold dear …”

Politicians generally pay only lip service to any notion of free speech in Europe. It sounds good as a soundbite during elections, while surrounded by half a dozen bodyguards in your immediate vicinity and many more security staff a moment away. Pushing in the opposite direction is all the hate speech legislation they have been happy to vote into existence.

This act today was not a civilian crime but an act of vengeance against the tenet of free speech. A tenet which our society purports to hold dear

Yeah, purports is the operative word. The professional troll Katie Hopkins is under criminal investigation for posting some words on social media (because of complaints made by members of the public), Paul Chambers was jailed for posting a supposedly ‘menacing’ joke/gripe that no-one actually felt menaced by; there’s people all over the shop being investigated by the police for posting ‘offensive’ words.

We are much better at killing them than they are at killing us. We firstly need to remember that.

We’re already in various places taking them out (even if it’s like whackamole); over here, we will end up having to close mosques, intern people and deport others, I fear. At some point, whether our liberal instincts like it or not, the gloves will have to come off. You cannot treat these people like ordinary criminals – the danger they pose and their dedication is orders of magnitude greater.

In the short/medium term, I think we in the UK have a big problem. In France, every copper is armed, albeit only with a Glock or similar, which leaves them outgunned by assault rifles but is better than a tin stick and some pepper spray.

Our first response in London is basically unarmed bobbies, with a Trojan unit hopefully nearby but equally possibly twenty minutes away.

There is a small SF detachment on 24 hour call (I think there is SFSG round about now too) but by the time they have got in the chopper, up and down… You could be talking hundreds dead, couldn’t you?

Imagine eight blokes in four teams of two at the main entrances to Trafalgar Square, or sealing off the ends of a street in Soho on a busy Saturday. Or going through a few floors at Canary Wharf. Or hitting Euston at 6pm midweek. Etc etc.

Can’t train the Met (or any force) up to carry firearms at the drop of a hat – would take years, literally.

Of course, they ought to start now – with a target of maybe a third of the Met, I understand lots don’t want to carry – because before we know it we may need those armed bobbies.

Be thankful for MI5 and the Counter Terrorist Command and those Muslims who are keeping them clued in because prevention is the only game in town at the mo.

Jack C – The solution lies in a breakdown in religious belief, and this will come with progress and prosperity (slowly).

Maybe.

It could happen, though won’t necessarily happen, because history doesn’t have a direction arrow. As a general observation, second and third generation Muslim immigrants tend to be more prosperous and more radicalised than their forefathers.

So it would seem having iPhones and BMW’s isn’t necessarily incompatible with jihad.

Also, is European-style secular social democracy irresistably attractive? It’s not working out so well for us at the moment, given that our welfare states are heading towards bankruptcy and we’re currently failing to replace ourselves.

So I dunno. At least the future won’t be boring. 🙂

Muslim governments will have to start clamping down themselves eventually

I do wonder how many of our terrorists were radicalised in Saudi-funded schools and mosques.

Interested – Can’t train the Met (or any force) up to carry firearms at the drop of a hat – would take years, literally.

It doesn’t take years to train a squaddie how to use a rifle. More like a few days to get the basics of safety, cleaning, and pop off a few rounds at the range. Marksmanship does take lots of practice though.

We could probably get a fair percentage of coppers armed and trained with G17’s and maybe some MP5’s by the end of this year if we really wanted to.

Sad if it comes to that, though. But given that apparently the guards outside Buckingham Palace have been withdrawn behind gates now, it seems we have come that, whether the Met realises it or not.

You are quite right of course, but relying on the police to protect us is somewhat inconsistent with their enthusiasm to alienate and piss off the mainly law-abiding population, in part by arresting people for making stupid Twitter remarks. Before I’d arm the Met properly, I’d get them doing their fucking job first.

The security debate is beside the point because you will always have some extremist blowing something up, even in the most homogeneous of societies.

The real question is: what is the maximum muslim population Europe can tolerate? For sure 50% is beyond the point of no return, also I’d, even as a liberal (European sense) atheist contend that >0 is no bad thing (if not they’d have to kick half my family out for starters). But at some point either the increase in the muslim population stops or Europe will inevitably become a very different – and far far worse – place. What is that point? Where is it? Which politician is going to dare give me an honest answer?

Bloke in Germany – I couldn’t tell you either mate, and unlike politicians I am prepared to be honest about this.

I would like to think we can always welcome a percentage of decent, productive non-psychopathic Muslims. But we need a means of getting rid of the scroungers, the mad bombers, the ones who want to string up homosexuals and Jews, and the rapists.

At the moment our immigration and asylum system (or lack of enforcing it), and the welfare state, encourages the dregs of humanity – both home-grown and imported – to have lots of babies at the expense of people who work for a living. That’s a big part of the problem.

I’d like to think that our media would unite shoulder to shoulder over this, but it is hard to see an overwhelmingly secular media which fawns to Islam by referring to “The Prophet Mohammed” doing anything but the odd squeal of qualified outrage, and nothing else.

Then again, would I want my company to be publicly known as a target? Nope, so I can understand their discretion. And why stick your head above the trench when your own entire political class is in thrall to a deranged multicultural philosophy?

The point about armed police is not about bombs, it’s that they may be able to take out shooters once they start but before they really get going.

Or they may not. But without them, it’s all about the body count.

Tim N there are 130,000 of the buggers in the country. Some of them are looking for missing kids, pulling bodies out of car wrecks and telling the relatives, catching actual crims (someone must have put those 85,000 people in prison), and breaking up pub brawls and domestics.

I’m sure a few of them are dickheads – there’s probably even dickheads in your line of work – but they’re really not all twats, they can’t be.

You could arm the Met, but how many innocent civilians would die in shootings by officers of the Met as a result? Maybe London would be like Paris or Berlin, with hardly any shootings. Maybe it would be like the US, with plenty.

But look around you in London. I walk a mile to and from work form a station on the edge of the City every day. I can’t recall seeing a police officer this week. So this is one if the busiest places in Britain at rush hour, with nary a policeman in sight, armed with a gun or not. Hardly a great deterrent.

Personally I think the absence of police officers is a positive point, the sign of a peaceful neighbourhood, but cops could be armed with chain guns and it would make zero difference if there weren’t any there when the latest episode of the Religion of Peace begins.

“Welfare goodies makes it worse – it reduces the incentive for immigrant populations to adopt the mores and customs of their hosts.”

Yep. If you incentivise work, and have freer markets, you encourage people to be more interdependent. If it’s a choice between hiring an idiot from the local church/mosque/synagogue who is going to fuck up your business and someone from a different race/religion who will make you richer, it’s more likely to sever old loyalties and create new ones.

It doesn’t take years to train a squaddie how to use a rifle. More like a few days to get the basics of safety, cleaning, and pop off a few rounds at the range. Marksmanship does take lots of practice though.

Collateral damage is actually legal in warfare.

Only one of my unit (who was an international level pistol shot, admittedly not with the crud we were issued) regularly beat the “qualified to carry a pistol” cops who were also officers in the unit on practice or qual shots. Anecdata .

We should sort out our ludicrously strict firearms laws.
Allow people without any serious criminal history (nothing violent, for example) to carry concealed firearms – semi automatic pistols, say up to 45 calibre. And keep an automatic rifle at home. If they want to that is.
It’s a lot harder to shoot a lot of people in a crowded area if half of them are likely to shoot back…

“It doesn’t take years to train a squaddie how to use a rifle. More like a few days to get the basics of safety, cleaning, and pop off a few rounds at the range. Marksmanship does take lots of practice though.”

Yep but as SE says, different jobs/requirements.

Plus easier to arrange your squaddies on the range than pull in (in London) x per cent of (?) 30,000 cops and get them up to speed.

They have a job already, they’re on test days, courses, at court, off injured etc etc

I’m sure a few of them are dickheads – there’s probably even dickheads in your line of work – but they’re really not all twats, they can’t be.

For sure. But the institution of “the police” is fast alienating the law-abiding population whilst pandering to the Muslim population by arresting people for the kind of stuff Charlie Hedbo published, and is becoming the sort of organisation that more twats want to join rather than fewer. It’s heading in the wrong direction, and I don’t think it will be fit to tackle this sort of threat until it is pulled back on track. But I fear it is already too late.

@Wasp, it does however create non-warfare collateral damage, vide the number of people shot in the US by accident or mistake with legally-held firearms. The utilitarian calculation comes down against widespread gun ownership outside of anomalous places like Kabul.

“The utilitarian calculation comes down against widespread gun ownership outside of anomalous places like Kabul.” Once the crims are tooled up, not to mention the mad mullahs, and given the uselessness of the constabulary, at some point the advantage tips quite clearly to allowing the law-abiding to be armed. I’ve not used a rifle in years, and have never used a pistol (other than an air pistol) but I’m quite prepared to learn, and to buy a gun cabinet. In particular, I’d welcome a chance for my widow-to-be to learn to shoot a pistol.

Armed coppers?–no. Not much use. They will never be there in time–mainly cos the attack will come at places they are not. Much more likely that extra cop thugs will be used against the native population.

What can be done?

-The return of armed self-defence and concealed carry for all adults who have no criminal convictions( and I mean real crim convictions–not speeding). Proper training must be undertaken to get a legal firearm but that is the only qualification. All rights of coppers to arrive for impromptu inspections etc–all that to be history. Armed citizens not costumed thugs. And sack all anti-gun Chief Constables and civil service parasites.
_Smash the left–no more murder apologists.
-No more Islamists allowed legal UK entry –ever. No more social security or any kind of services for illegals at all.
-No demographic growth. More than two kids –no state support ever. Two kids only means RoP numbers will decline along with the rest of the UK population–no demographic takeover
-No more mosques ever in the UK
-Halal banned
-Sharia law banned–no more cases heard under non UK law
-Mosques/madrassas preaching jihad get shut–no appeal–that’s it. Recordings will be needed as proof of what has gone on but , once obtained, the particular institution is shut down permanently-no messing.
-Disenfranchisment. It is what would be done to us should we ever be stupid enough to end up dhimmi in our own nation. In every other respect equal under the law but no vote. Will help to pay ZaNu back for its “rob our noses in diversity” shit.

Harsh measures but –unless anyone on here thinks the UK will benefit from fighting a second civil war in 25-30 years time–needed. This is not a muslim country and it is never going to be one.Muslims who want to live quietly and get on with their lives can do so. Jihadists who think that are taking over will get the message that they are not going to do so and that this is a very bad country to try their luck in as takeover artists.

Tim Worstall – “I deliberately used that word instead of “execute” or “kill without trial”. Because charging, trying and then jailing for life is still eradication.”

No it isn’t. Tookie Williams had a bigger following in prison than he did outside. Even Charles Manson has groupies. He just got married.

Besides, they won’t stay in prison. Samir Kuntar took part in one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in Israel. He crushed a young girl’s skull with his rifle butt. Israel was forced to release him in the end and now he is a hero in three countries.

Rob – “Plus, of course, more hashtags.”

Obviously. The Islamists tremble at the thought of a hashtag.

JeremyT – “No, they’ll be killed resisting arrest. Marine le Pen was anyway inevitable, and militant Islam in France is now in for a terminally tough time.”

I bet they won’t. Le Pen was not inevitable but I certainly hope she is now. And militant Islam will be ruling France within your children’s lifetime. A token of resistance is not going to help.

The Stigler – “The question is what you do. These people don’t respond to disincentives of death and prison.”

Spain solved this problem in 1492.

ukliberty – “Someone will come along and say, “we are at war”. Maybe in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not in France or the UK – I think that stretches the meaning of “war” so far as to make it virtually meaningless.”

I don’t think so. It looks a lot like a low level civil war to me.
We are past the point we can pretend this is crime. It isn’t. And we are not at war in Afghanistan or Iraq either.

“Treat these people like the criminals they are according to the rules they seem to despise.”

Rules they rightly despise. Human rights are not a suicide pact. They are fun when dealing with the civilised, although they have come with a very large death toll in places like the US. They do not work though. We need to ignore the civil rights lawyers.

Steve – “If the fundamentalists assume the Europeans will be pacifist forever, they’re in for an unpleasant surprise.”

I disagree. I think they are perfectly right to assume that.

ukliberty – “I strongly doubt they assume ‘Europeans’ are pacifist, for what should be obvious reasons.”

Go on, do tell.

Jack C – “The silver lining here is the (imperfect) peace in Northern Ireland. This was also a meeting of two mutually exclusive viewpoints.”

That was a unilateral surrender by the British government to the terrorism of the PIRA. How is that a silver lining? We should invite Andy Choudhuri to become Defence Minister? That is what you call a victory?

“The solution lies in a breakdown in religious belief, and this will come with progress and prosperity (slowly).”

The Northern Ireland conflict was not religious.

“Further, Muslim governments will have to start clamping down themselves eventually .. well let’s hope so.”

They were told this would happen. They knew the risks. They just wanted to strut the world stage as “anti-racists”. Which meant sacrificing the White working class first of all and now the civil liberties of all. And they won’t stop either. Cameron still wants to import millions – just as Blair did. At some point the British people will get tired of having their noses rubbed in diversity.

Interested – “We are much better at killing them than they are at killing us. We firstly need to remember that.”

No we are not. Because we are not trying to kill them.

Steve – “Sad if it comes to that, though. But given that apparently the guards outside Buckingham Palace have been withdrawn behind gates now, it seems we have come that, whether the Met realises it or not.”

Because the British government did not do its basic job of keeping nutters who want to kill us on the right side of the border (and prison for that matter) we all have to retreat behind walls. This is Britain’s future – ever smaller enclaves of White civilisation while the slaughter goes on outside. Even for the Queen.

It’s an interesting manifesto, Mr Ecks, and I could even sign up to it. But my immediate concern is not being shot next time I’m in London, and, to that end, more armed Old Bill is likely to be more effective than having decided to remove the vote from Muslims some time in the next decade or two.

“But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.”

Looking back up the comments before the silliness virus struck there’s this gem from interested:

“We are much better at killing them than they are at killing us. We firstly need to remember that. ”

Finest bit of delusion, today.

No mate. They are very good at killing us. As Paris just showed. All they have to do is to decide to do some killing – then go kill.

To kill them, our politicians have to work their way round to authorising the action. Not the easiest task, even if they’ve the stomach for the task… But, having done the deed we’ll then start the process of tearing ourselves to pieces over having done it. And do ourselves more damage than the terrorists achieve..
They reckon they’re fighting a war.
Apparently, we reckon they’ve been naughty & possibly need counseling. Or that’s the principle our law enforcement system is based on.
Asymmetry.

And just read the same guy’s body count theories.
Jeez.
There are relatively few of them. It’s a very small target for us to hit.
We are all targets. The body count total is just what they want it to be. If they want to chalk up another few thousand on their tally, they just need to do it. Like they did 9/11.

Interested: I take your point. But if the shooting starts where you are it is highly likely that old bill won’t be there and won’t get there until you are already shot to pieces (unless you fall in with a bunch of hostage takers). And that is assuming they spill out of their cars and into action rather than taking the time to assess/ensure their own safety.You would be far better off with your own gun and the proper training to use it. And lots of other people around who also have guns and know how to use them. In such halcyon circs any wannabe jihadis wont know who is armed and who isn’t and what kind of return fire they can expect. They can always avoid the cops but they can’t open fire on an unarmed crowd if lots of members of said crowd aren’t unarmed.

@dearieme, I agree, but we are a very long way from that. Even the vastly more violent USA is a long way from it, given the unfavourable ratio of unintended firearms deaths to successful “shoot-back” incidents.

The second cartoon cover is interesting. Did Charlie Hebdo really see the naughtiness of mocking those two groups as equivalent? Would they see it that way now (if they hadn’t just been inconveniently murdered by representatives of one of the groups)? Were you aware of that message, Tim, when made your selection?

Anyway – open borders immigration now! And unilateral free trade with any set of mad goat-fuckers going. That’ll sort it. Because economics. Yeah.

BIG :That is standard anti-gun rubbish. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides/accident or crims shooting each other. At least 100,000 incidents occur in the US each year of violent crimes being halted in their tracks by the intended victim displaying a firearm (and the intent to use it). Many of those incidents involve women making wannabe assaulters and rapists run the other way. Probably to find another victim in the ranks of anti-gun nitwits.

BinG“Even the vastly more violent USA is a long way from it, given the unfavourable ratio of unintended firearms deaths to successful “shoot-back” incidents.”

The violent parts of the USA are overwhelmingly those with gun bans, not those with gun permits.

Comparing unintended firearms deaths to actual shoot-back incidents is utter dipshittedness. The meaningful comparison would be between unintended firearms deaths and crimes deterred by citizen gun ownership. A figure we cannot know exactly but can infer from the reality of my first sentence.

PJF – “The violent parts of the USA are overwhelmingly those with gun bans, not those with gun permits.”

People think governments can make a difference. And they can. In Switzerland. In most of the rest of the world, people ignore the government. The most violent parts of the US have gun bans, but causation is hard. Is it caused by the gun ban? What we can say is that the most violent parts of the US have the most violent populations. That is, Black people. Oddly enough other American countries with a lot of Black people are very violent too. Jamaica has, basically, British culture and very tough gun laws. But it is more violent than the US. As is South Africa. As the rest of Africa probably is if they had genuine statistics.

But it is probably a coincidence.

The British government failed by allowing these sort of people into the country – both terrorists and violent criminals. They failed to protect us. They failed to keep criminals in prison. And they will fail to keep guns out of our hands. They can either allow us to do that legally or gradually we will acquire them illegally. But acquire them we will.

It seems our “leaders” have already got a strategy in motion to deal with jihadis:

“It’s been 66 years since George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 was published.

In it, Orwell depicts a future where the UK (and the whole world really) descends into a totalitarian regime that’s in a perpetual state of war, propaganda, and persecution.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the story is the omnipresent government surveillance and complete lack of privacy.

People live in apartments equipped with two-way telescreens so that they could be watched and listened to at all times.

Public spaces are similarly littered with recording devices and microphones so that everyone is kept in check.

Undercover agents pose as normal citizens and report any person with subversive tendencies. Children become government spies. Everyone snitches on everyone else.

A lot of these elements are too familiar today.

There’s a complete lack of privacy online, with governments brazenly snooping on every activity from tracking people’s movements, to trolling social media, intercepting and storing emails and instant messages, listening in on voice conversations, etc.

Most public spaces are full of CCTV cameras.

Financial privacy of course doesn’t exist anymore—financial nudity is the norm today. Everyone from bankers to brokers to payday lenders are forcibly being drafted into the ranks of unpaid government spies.

1984 takes place in the UK—it was Orwell’s view of what his country would develop into in the future.

The irony is not lost on us as we regrettably report today that politicians in the House of Commons in the UK are right now debating legislation put forth which would require teachers in nurseries, elementary schools and other educational institutions to report children between ages 3 to 11 with ‘terrorist inclinations’.

The legislation is part of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill that’s currently in Parliament in London.

It says nurseries should ensure proper training to give staff the “knowledge and confidence to identify” and “challenge extremist ideas which can be used to legitimize terrorism and are shared by terrorist groups.”

It will become teachers’ duty to monitor, track, and report children’s words and actions that show signs of sympathy with terrorists or is a risk of potential radicalization.

Now, this is happening in the UK, but it could easily be anywhere in Western Europe or North America.

Not long ago the West used to stand for something. It was the beacon of freedom, liberty, human rights, and hope. The West gave people the chance to rise in life.

Now, sadly, it’s turning into Orwell’s dystopian version of itself. Soon, a teacher won’t just be someone charged with the education of our children… but rather another unpaid government spy.

Life really does imitate art.”

Import potential enemies and declare we have to have a police state to ensure safety. 1984 indeed.

Well, a crime deterred is not usually a murder, so 1:1 doesn’t work there either. You’d have to make some value judgements about your trade-offs. Such as one mother shot to death by her toddler is worth, well for the sake of argument one murder deterred. But what about muggings? Fifty-thousand perhaps.

BIG: As convincing as yours. 50000 muggings=1 accidental death–when its only clear after the mugging that it was “only2 a mugging and you’ve survived?. Yeah all those women shouldn’t have chased their attackers away with a nasty gun cos statistically it was only a mugging and she’d most likely just have got her nose broken or a few teeth knocked out. Very unlucky if she was abducted , raped, tortured and suffocated/buried alive. And of course one accidental death justifies her taking the risk.

Shut the fuck up is an excellent counter argument to the tripe you are peddling.

Mr Ecks – “The irony is not lost on us as we regrettably report today that politicians in the House of Commons in the UK are right now debating legislation put forth which would require teachers in nurseries, elementary schools and other educational institutions to report children between ages 3 to 11 with ‘terrorist inclinations’.”

Teachers are already happy to brand children as racists or misogynists for life at the behest of the government. The problem is not merely Muslims, it is also that our Elders and Betters have no idea what liberalism means or what a liberal society should look like.

But the bottom line remains, as I have said before, every country with a sizable Muslim population is a sh!thole that tortures. We can have no Muslims and a liberal society or we can have plenty of Muslims and no civil liberties. Our choice.

BiG, all US mass killings have happened in ‘gun free’ zones. Killings in concealed carry jurisdictions get capped at 2, as the perpetrator is nailed. For the statistics Mr Ecks references, read one of John Lott’s books. He compares crime levels across US counties, and shows, for example, that if 21 year-old-women get the right to concealed carry (CC), then the rape rate for that demographic falls (but the rape rate for younger women is unchanged). And if the CC age is dropped to 18, then that rate also falls. This happens when the number of women doing CC is very low – I think 1 in a 1,000.
That reflects the fact that rapists, like Jihadis, hate being shot by their intended victims.
So I agree with Mr. E: we must bear arms if our nation is to avoid falling to Islam.

For sure. But the institution of “the police” is fast alienating the law-abiding population whilst pandering to the Muslim population by arresting people for the kind of stuff Charlie Hedbo published, and is becoming the sort of organisation that more twats want to join rather than fewer.

Other than the free-speech arrests, which are of a different sort here in the States*, the US is probably further down the road of twats wanting to become police. Read Radley Balko or reason.com (warning: we commenters on the blog are a really saucy lot) for example. Or do a Google search on the word “puppycide”.

*Filming police doing their jobs in public is expressly legal here in the US, but you wouldn’t believe how many cases there are of police trying to intimidate/arrest people doing such filming/photography.

It is utterly ludicrous to say “we are not at war” and that this is a criminal matter. THEY have declared war on us. Our refusal to fight back doesn’t mean we are not at war, it means we are cowards. We will win when the will of the enemy is crushed and that means crushing islam, at home and abroad. Jail is not a weapon of war, so long as we treat it as such, we may consider ourselves as the losing side in the struggle.

“Every newspaper throughout the world that believes in free speech and freedom of the press should be doing the same.”

I agree in principle Doc but in practice this simply creates many new targets. You’re asking an editor or publisher to put his staff’s lives on the line.

I think in all conscience you can only ask people to do it if you are prepared to do it yourself – ie start a blog, in your own name and with your daytime address on it, and make yourself as much of a target.

We need to work to a position where we can do this without fear of reprisal, and that means cultural and political changes some of which are discussed above.

Other than the free-speech arrests, which are of a different sort here in the States*, the US is probably further down the road of twats wanting to become police.

I fully agree. From what I can tell (and I may be wrong, but this is my gut feeling) the American police (and a lot of British police) are wannabee military who have seen the movies about brotherhood, sacrifice, and glory but lack the fitness, discipline, and other core qualities to join up. So they buy all the military gear, dress up as Action Men, and swagger about as if they’re the 101st Airborne at Bastogne.

Filming police doing their jobs in public is expressly legal here in the US, but you wouldn’t believe how many cases there are of police trying to intimidate/arrest people doing such filming/photography.

This too: there are umpteen cases in the UK of the police deliberately lying to a citizen who is breaking no laws – and sometimes arresting them – because the police don’t approve of said legal action. It is my opinion that the police should be made fully aware of certain rights (such as filming the police) as part of their training and any officer who lies deliberately to a citizen on this subject is fired immediately and his superior on a last warning.

@Interested I know what you mean but fuck me the crossfire would be something to behold!

Yep. Would best being viewed from far away. Or just remember to duck. 😉

@BiG it does however create non-warfare collateral damage, vide the number of people shot in the US by accident or mistake with legally-held firearms. The utilitarian calculation comes down against widespread gun ownership outside of anomalous places like Kabul.

Which is why I would recommend a mandatory training and licensing programme. Just like driving, except with harsher penalties for being a muppet. You could even have a similar points and offence code structure.

Handling without due care – 6 points.
Dangerous handling – 2 year ban.
Leaving firearms unattended near children – 5 year ban.
Causing death by dangerous handling – throw the book at them.
Handling in public while drunk/high – lifetime ban & couple of years in prison.
After first ban, second ban is permanent.

Law abiding, responsible people would be safe and careful. It is never going to be perfect, but I think it would be a good balance between making sure people can defend themselves and keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of idiots.

Research on the efficacy of concealed carry in the US. It’s a fascinatng subject. The short version of interpretation of the stats is: Every jurisdiction that introduces concealed carry sees a reduction in crime and violent crime, but, controlling for various other influences, there is debate whether concealed carry causes that reduction in crime or has no effect. No-one serious claims that it increases crime, as the stats simply can’t be massaged that hard. So an armed public either has no effect or a good effect — in which case, why the hell disarm them?

Funnily enough, it’s the same for the post-Dunblane stats here: a massive increase in crime after guns were banned, but offically the ban had no effect whatsoever.

Personally, I would sooner arm the public than the police. With the obvious exception of Londoners, as they’re sociopaths.

If we arm the police as a matter of course instead of the current few specialist units, we should arm the public as well. The idea of an unarmed populace with an armed police force is just asking for trouble. Especially with the quality of our cops who, as far as I can tell, are either on a power trip or just couldn’t give a sh*t.

Interested,
So what will you do with your newly armed police? How would you protect London streets with them? The French police are both armed, and were protecting the Hebdo offices.

Neither were armed forces able to secure Belfast.

There’s a reason we don’t see armed police at airport terminals anymore.

As for Illinois, let’s see (I spend a lot of time in Chicago, so have an interest). What we do know:

a) The murder rate in Chicago is unbelievably high, and will remain so (fortunately, much of this happens in certain areas at certain times). The older days were much worse though.

b) The overall crime rate appears to have been lowered by the new concealed carry law, though one swallow and all that. Remember, however, that guns were already freely available. If you arm the UK population, you have to assume that there will be some additional gun crime..

Ian Bennett – “I’m sure I’m not the first to note that this latest barbarity is not just “retribution” against Charlie but also pour encourager les autres, and, in that respect, will probably succeed.”

The Left is already blaming CH itself. CNN is running interviews about what they did to deserve this. Various Guardian writers have come out to express their disdain at the paper. So we will not see people challenge the Islamists again.

Jack C – “Neither were armed forces able to secure Belfast.”

It would have taken the Parachute Regiment an afternoon to secure Belfast if they had been allowed to.

“a) The murder rate in Chicago is unbelievably high, and will remain so (fortunately, much of this happens in certain areas at certain times). The older days were much worse though.”

Chicago is a largely Black city and the murder rate is almost entirely concentrated among Black yoof. It is getting even more Black and so the murder rate will continue to rise. The old days weren’t much worse.

“If you arm the UK population, you have to assume that there will be some additional gun crime..”

Oddly enough in 1904 there were guns everywhere except in the hands of the police. For the Sydney Street Seige they had to borrow guns from passers by. But something like 4 gun crimes in the whole of London. Admittedly we have imported a Jamaican crime culture along with a lot of Jamaicans so you’re probably partly right. But in fairness it is not as if Jamaican Yardies can’t get all the guns they want.

> The silver lining here is the (imperfect) peace in Northern Ireland. This was also a meeting of two mutually exclusive viewpoints.

No it bloody wasn’t.

The reason successive British governments refused to negotiate with the IRA is the perfectly sensible principle that you don’t negotiate with terrorists because doing so gets you more terrorism. But the IRA’s demand — that Northern Ireland cease to be part of the UK and become part of Ireland — is something reasonable people can peacefully and democratically discuss. The objection to the IRA was not to their aim, but to their strategy. The conflict was eventually ended by persuading them to change their strategy. The refusal to negotiate was never based on the idea that there was no room for negotiation on the actual issues themselves — which is why neither the SDLP nor the Labour Party were regarded as criminal organisations.

In the case of Salafist Islam, it is their viewpoint itself that is incompatible with our society — even if they were somehow pursuing their demands peacefully. Which bit do you want us to negotiate over? We could offer to give all infidels life sentences instead of killng them, perhaps? Let women drive on Sundays? Let girls go to school as long as they only study sewing and cooking? Forcibly sterilise the Jews instead of slaughtering them? What?

> The solution lies in a breakdown in religious belief, and this will come with progress and prosperity (slowly).

Rather than spouting this article of pure faith, read some history. The exact opposite has been happening.

@SQ2, pre/post Dunblane crime stats have nothing to do with the handgun ban because people have not been allowed to carry handguns in the UK for at least decades. The few legal handguns in circulation at the time were owned by shooting enthusiasts and kept under circumstances that would effectively prevent their use in crime deterrence. So going from that situation to an almost total ban couldn’t have that much affected criminal behaviour.

Seemingly pointing out that the USA, with its concealed carry permits, and totally awash with guns, is more violent than the UK, and carries the collateral damage of toddlers shooting their mothers dead in supermarkets, is illegitimate. Coz iz da niggahs wot doz it or something. Which is about as logical as claiming Northern Irish people, in general, have an above average propensity to blow things up.

Squander,
No, I don’t think we can negotiate with Islam, that is sort of my point.

1) Islam is entirely incompatible with Western Liberal Democracy
2) Islam is the word of God, so there can be no negotiation
3) Worse, the Koran, unlike the looser Bible, is a highly detailed instruction manual, with no wiggle room.

The long-term solution, therefore, is the break down of belief. Assuming this won’t happen is, I think, erroneous..

Europe was blighted by fundamentalist religious wars as well you know.

> The long-term solution, therefore, is the break down of belief. Assuming this won’t happen is, I think, erroneous.

I’m not assuming anything. I’m observing the direction Islam has been moving in over the last century. It is you who claimed that increased prosperity leads to a religious belief becoming more moderate, which is the precise opposite of what has happened in, you know, reality.

Bloke in Germany – “Seemingly pointing out that the USA, with its concealed carry permits, and totally awash with guns, is more violent than the UK, and carries the collateral damage of toddlers shooting their mothers dead in supermarkets, is illegitimate. Coz iz da niggahs wot doz it or something. Which is about as logical as claiming Northern Irish people, in general, have an above average propensity to blow things up.”

Well, people in Northern Ireland do have an above average propensity to blow things up. They also, allegedly, have an above average propensity to murder each other – supposedly you can still see this effect in the US where places with greater Northern Irish settlement also have higher gun crime.

It is not unreasonable to point out that the US has higher gun crime than the UK. But Swedish Americans have lower crime rates than Swedes do. German Americans have lower crime rates than Germans. Japanese Americans have lower crime rates than Japanese. And it appears that African Americans have lower crime rates than Africans. Hard to tell though.

Crime is a cultural thing. White Americans do not commit much crime. They just don’t. A mainly White state like Minnesota does not have unusually large murder rates compared to European countries – as long as you exclude the Black urban neighbourhoods.

So yes, America’s crime problems are largely an African American crime problem. Guns got nothing to do with it.

Squander,
“I’m not assuming anything. I’m observing the direction Islam has been moving in over the last century. It is you who claimed that increased prosperity leads to a religious belief becoming more moderate, which is the precise opposite of what has happened in, you know, reality.”

That’s not reality. Look at Christianity. Islam is a grievous problem now, and much much worse outside the Western world than within (a little perspective helps here), but:

a) Modern transport allows much greater opportunity
b) Islam was a much greater threat a few hundred years ago
c) Prosperity will allow contact, and greater information
d) Many in power have a vested interest in Islamism as a route to power, and will continue to use the uneducated and gullible to do their dirty work

It’s a massive problem. However, Muslims are humans too, and I just don’t believe that they’re intrinsically more religious. Certainly I’ve seen no evidence for this.

“I mean the groups of 2/3 with machine guns, who would have been entirely useless in a terminal, and/or shot first.”

The sort of weapons you see police carrying at airports are probably the best weapons for the job. What do you expect them to be carrying? A high power rifle would give a target a through wound & probably include the two or three people standing behind. The usual advice given with a pistol is “hold the end of the barrel against the target & you might not miss”. The weapon is short enough to use in confined spaces, capable of rapid, single shot fire & is a stable platform for delivering accurate aimed fire.
Unfortunately, swaggering around like extras from a low budget action movie does not appear in the handling instructions. On the other hand, maybe it’s intentional. In case of an incident, they need to look unmistakably police so the public are likely to respond immediately to instructions. But they mustn’t look like approachable police. Not someone you ask about a mislaid child or the directions to the Ryanair check-in . They are, indeed, the likeliest people to come under fire. And it’s preferable there’s a clear area around them so they present the best target. They’re the only people around wearing armour.

The total number of spree killer victims is small compared with the overall number of gun deaths. The vast majority of deliberate shootings in the US involve black drug gangs fighting over turf and settling scores. Also spree killers are not all white. The US army base shooter was of Arab origin and others are black Islamic converts (ironic in view of the fact muslims were enslaving and castrating black slaves long before white Europeans had more than a vague idea where Africa was).

We need to take the gloves off.
If the governments don’t, the population will defend itself and that will lead to very bloody chaos.
I fear for the future in the West and Europe.
Time to make escape plans to leave methinks – in case one of these sparks actually catches.

Jack C:Per head of population Whites commit less crime than Blacks but more than Asians. That what the stats say whether you like it or not. Claims about being “better” are your inferences. It is certainly more pleasant to live in communities that have less violence and crime.

Mr Ecks,
I haven’t disputed that at all. However, you can’t just take what happens now, out of context and without regard to previous history.

At present, Western Europe is highly orderly and civilised, but that hasn’t always been the case.

Black areas in the US are absolutely a problem (my main places of work are Compton, CA, where we have armed security, Chicago, and New Jersey). And yes, these areas are more intimidating than others. However, where Americans have similar backgrounds, outcomes and attitudes are fairly similar regardless of race.

A passing knowledge of white attitudes and behaviour towards blacks in the US over time shows that there is blame on both sides.

Russia, or one of the ex-soviet states probably. I don’t think they’re as tolerant of this kind of behaviour there.
Sure, it may not be the same as the West (different problems), but the people are relatively friendly and I don’t see Russia bowing down to Islam any time soon.

If I have to make a choice between living in a corrupt society which basically leaves you alone as long as you don’t try and challenge the corrupt institutions and a caliphate which tells me to worship magic sky fairies five times a day, that I can’t listen to music, can’t enjoy a bacon sandwich the morning after one too many drinks and lots of other freedoms gone – then it isn’t a hard choice to make…

> Indeed, and when it came to the crunch, the populace did NOT back the state belief system. And that was that for the Soviet Union.

Sorry, this is bollocks. The populace of Hungary did not back the Russian state belief system in 1956, when it came to the crunch for them. Fat lot of good that did them. Ditto the Czechs in 68. Ditto the Russians themselves for almost the entire history of the USSR. Not backing the state belief system simply got you killed or tortured or imprisoned or sent to the Gulag.

What eventually did for the Soviet Union was decades of fighting back against it. Your claim is that Salafism and Wahhabism can be defeated by just sitting around waiting for Muslims to become prosperous, which will inevitably lead to the marginalisation of violent extremism. This is an article of faith contrary to the evidence. It is also a cruel abandonment of those Muslims who are horrified and oppressed by these bastards. “Oh, just wait till they become more prosperous. It’ll all work out eventually.” That must be nice for Yemenis to hear.

ISIS is now the wealthiest terrorist organisation in history, with more money than some nation-states. All that prosperity is calming them down, is it?

“Interested,
So what will you do with your newly armed police? How would you protect London streets with them? The French police are both armed, and were protecting the Hebdo offices.”

Unarmed cop vs armed terrorist, terrorist wins every time.
Armed cop vs armed terrorist, cop may win.
Single armed cop in whole of London, chances of being in right place to stand a chance of winning, minimal.
More armed cops in London, chances of being in right place to stand a chance of winning, greater.

I don’t claim it’s a panacea, but personally next time I’m at Paddington I’d rather see armed cops there (and know that plain clothesed ones are knocking about) than not.

“Neither were armed forces able to secure Belfast.”

Yes, but this is not a logical argument. How bad do you think things would have got without the Army and cops? Don’t forget, or read up and find out, that we were originally invited in by the Catholics. Why do you think that was?

Google Loughall, to name just one incident where soldiers dealt with a terrorist threat and saved a huge number of innocent people from death.

“There’s a reason we don’t see armed police at airport terminals anymore.”

But we do.

Also the ‘machine guns’ they carry are the best weapon for the job. Used in a single shot semi-auto role with a low-power heavy round which fragments on impact and stops the intended target and doesn’t then go on to exit and kill the little girl in the queue behind her.

Those films where people shoot people dozens of metres away across crowded halls with automatic pistols?

Doesn’t really happen, on account of short barrels = low accuracy. A pistol is useful for two things: very short range self defence and to a lesser extent suppressing fire (where you blat away to keep matey’s head down while your oppo gets into position to take a proper shot).

You don’t want to use suppressing fire in an airport terminal, usually, and if the target is close enough to you to use a handgun you have probably already failed.

“As for Illinois, let’s see (I spend a lot of time in Chicago, so have an interest).”

So do I. But note that I talked about the state, not the city.

“What we do know:

“a) The murder rate in Chicago is unbelievably high, and will remain so (fortunately, much of this happens in certain areas at certain times).”

Whatever can you mean by ‘certain areas’? You can’t mean ‘black’ areas, because later on you suggest black crime is a myth?

“The older days were much worse though.”

Can you show some stats to back up this claim?

“b) The overall crime rate appears to have been lowered by the new concealed carry law,”

Which was my point.

” though one swallow and all that. Remember, however, that guns were already freely available. If you arm the UK population, you have to assume that there will be some additional gun crime..”

As Mao suggested, history is a long time.

But for now the important question is whether it will be balanced out by a drop in other crime. The stats and common sense *seem* (I put it no stronger than that) to suggest the answer is, it will.

‘However, where Americans have similar backgrounds, outcomes and attitudes are fairly similar regardless of race.’

Sorry to bang on at you, it’s not personal, but read some Thomas Sowell.

Black marriage rates – for instance – were higher than whites at the turn of the 18th century.

Along came liberal white America with welfare and ruined it.

Don’t forget, because it’s very important – that the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klax (and for most of his career David Duke of recent newsworthiness) – everything they do seems either deliberately or inadvertently to be aimed at doing down black people, for some bizarre reason.

They ruined the black family, they told blacks they were the permanent victims, they wrecked their education, they encouraged them to follow unculture, and the result is death in the ghetto.

> At present, Christians are highly orderly and civilised, but that hasn’t always been the case.

Exactly. It pisses me off when people respond to any discussion of the Salafist problem by bringing up historical problems with Christianity, always with the implication that attacking one and not the other is bigotry. It’s not bigotry or prejudice; it’s a simple matter of being alive right now. If I’d been around 500 years ago, I hope I would have been one of those people with the courage to speak out against the Church. But I wasn’t, so I’ll never know.

There is also the issue of scale. Fun fact: Since 11/9/2001, jihadis have killed more people in the name of Islam per day than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 200 years.

So if your response to criticism of jihadis’ beliefs is to start harping on about the Spanish Inquisition, I have to ask: Are you on crack?

The Crusades were a response to attacks on Christians and Christian shrines in the Holy Land occasioned by a new even nastier crew of Islamists (to wit the Seljuk turks) taking over the middle east. A response to the results of Islamic in-fighting. They didn’t come about because the Pope was sitting on his arse one day and decided he needed a new hobby.

Our politicians are so afraid of being labelled as “racist” or other words that they are bending over to the enemy.
The enemy doesn’t care about killing innocents, unarmed civilians are their main targets.
Arming the populace allows us to defend ourselves against attacks. That frees state resources to go after them and hard – track them down, deport them. Shoot if they resist.

I’d also change the policy regarding ISIS. If people want to go fight for these nutters, don’t try to stop them. Give them a parachute and drop them out of an RAF transport over ISIS territory for free. Don’t let them back in.

At the minute we’re being too nice. If they attack us, carpet bomb ISIS positions, or Al-Quaeda positions (I bet the intelligence services have pretty good ideas where they are). Pay them back in spades – 10:1, 20:1. Hashtags just aren’t good enough.
We’re (The West) the best at this. We industrialised death and the military. Lets use our knowledge instead of just throwing words around.

It won’t be pretty or quick, but the alternative is the extinction of our culture.

KBO, in these circumstances, means carry on being liberal and rational.

The UK threat level (whatever that means) has been raised. I think this means that there are more men with guns at airports. Unless there are grounds to believe that the Charlie Hebdo attack is part of an international plot, it is hard to find a rational explanation for the response.

Some whackos may be incited to conduct pro- or counter-attacks by these murders. Irrational people may perform dreadful acts, but it is unlikely that they’ll have a go at blokes armed with semi-automatic weapons. They’ll try something else from which armed blokes can’t protect us.

Firstly, I’m not pro-gun. I’m pro-self-defence, in a world in which criminals have guns. Secondly, I don’t hold that view because of what happened in Paris yesterday, so how I might have performed in such an extreme and anomalous situation is hardly relevant to my views, any more than umbrellas are proven useless by lightning.

However, in gun-carrying jurisdictions, a lot of gun owners are also trained and practiced. In Switzerland, practice is compulsory. In Isreal, the IDF are required to carry their rifles at all times, even when off duty. In the US, gun ranges are popular and owners generally do a lot of practice. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that such people would all be slaughtered without having any effect.

The Nazis respected Swiss neutrality because of their armed and trained populace. That’s the most powerful military force on the planet at the time, but you find it impossible that two or three guys’ behaviour might be affected.

CharliemanThe UK threat level (whatever that means) has been raised. I think this means that there are more men with guns at airports. Unless there are grounds to believe that the Charlie Hebdo attack is part of an international plot, it is hard to find a rational explanation for the response.

‘If you put all the pro-gun people here, pistol in hand, up against those heavily-armed, trained, practised, callous thugs in Paris, which side do you think would have all the dead bodies?’

‘Callous?’ Anyone can be callous when they’re facing death so that evens that one out.

‘Trained, practised?’ A few people on here might be a bit better trained than those two, who were basically aping stuff they’ve seen in films.

Achieving reasonable groupings with an AK is better than some of their brethren have historically been able to manage – Darwin might have something to say about that – but it’s not evidence of Special Forces superheroness, you know.

Ditto shooting an unarmed and defenceless man in the head from two metres. Anyone can do it, including your granny.

Thing is, it is a *lot* fucking easier when the people you are shooting at are not shooting back.

It’s harder still to get those tight groupings if you are facing man A (armed and shooting back) and man B (also armed) is at your 6. That might be entertaining.

As others point out, the bodies were all on one side yesterday, so having a few Glocks around the shop couldn’t have made it worse.

Islamist terror is a daily embuggerance and cost as so many additional security measures have had to be introduced. (Not that we hadn’t had terror groups or security measures in Europe before).

However, the number of actual attacks within the Western world is actually very small. This may, in part, be due to the significant military action that we’ve taken.

Yes, we’re fairly or very wet as regards “hate preachers” and so forth, but we don’t have constant attacks, or anything like it. Adding 60-odd million guns to society – for no specific benefit – seems a gross over-reaction.

The London bombings: how would an armed populace have helped there? Or armed police outside the Hebdo office?

‘Interested,
Yes, there probably are more Christians than Muslims currently, and neither are they any sort of threat any more. There’s not many though. We’re a civilised and orderly secular society.’

I confess I don’t understand your point. My point was that Christians (either qua Christians or merely being the historically descended population of these isles) have gone through a period of enlightenment and are now not going to kill anyone for religion, whereas most muslims have not gone through the enlightenment, and of those ‘mnost’ some are prepared to kill people.

You now seem to be agreeing with me, but when I expressed the same thing earlier you said ‘No that doesn’t work?’

‘The London bombings: how would an armed populace have helped there? Or armed police outside the Hebdo office?’

Thing is, no-one can say. But it’s possible that someone sees chummy fiddling with his rucksack on the tube, challenges him and blows him away.

This may seem unlikely, and maybe it is, but we know two things:

1) suicide bombers regularly get slotted in other countries before they go bang

2) without a gun you’re basically cowering on the floor hoping there’s no too much shrapnel.

I don’t think anyone wants 60 million weapons – you could restrict it to ex mil, or have SAS level training, or whatever, to keep the numbers down. No-one wants crack dealers and the mentally ill armed, for instance.

BTW, the tech has existed for some time to render firearms unusable except by the specified user. It’s not in use yet, but it will be and it would make me a lot happier – then you can’t steal my pistol from my locker or holster and use it on me, or anyone else.)

@Squander Two: “There may prove to be no logistical connection, but it is at least hardly crazy to think there might be.”

Let’s assume either a copy cat attack or another form of violence.

Private Eye is a bit more sophisticated magazine than Charlie Hebdo, and it is unlikely to be an attack victim from Islamic nutters. In the last 50 years, it has offended the Catholic church, the Italian mafia, the Russian mafia, Russian “businessmen”, MI5, MI6, Special Branch, Scotland Yard, every English language newspaper you’d care to read and the Royal bloody Family.

The most likely UK targets are Moslems and ex-Moslems working for organisations seeking a liberal social concord. Hopefully they are receiving the defence and help that they need. However, we have to remember that Charlie Hebdo employees were already under protection when they were murdered and assaulted.

Other forms of violence are too numerous to categorise. What we do know is how few other forms of violence have been conquered by an armed security guard. Would armed Japanese police officers made any difference to the religious cult who released poison gas on the Tokyo underground?

Perhaps I’m naive but I presume that the police officers and security agencies are doing their best to look after me every day. Not just on “top threat level days”.

If my neighbour had been blown up two weeks ago, would I be expected to be more accepting of her demise, ‘cos the coppers weren’t on the job owing to it being a low threat day?

This is completely backwards. It’s nothing to do with adding guns. The state already subtracted the guns — for no measurable benefit, according to their own figures.

Some of us happen to think that freedom is an actual principle. If banning a freedom has no effect, why do it? There is no onus on us to give point-by-point explanations of hypothetical scenarios to make that argument.

> The London bombings: how would an armed populace have helped there?

An armed populace has been shown to reduce the efficacy of suicide bombings in Israel. It doesn’t need to stop every one perfectly for that to be true.

> Or armed police outside the Hebdo office?

There were armed police outside the Hebdo office. How do you know they didn’t help? For a start, they drew fire — towards themselves and therefore away from passers-by. Do you know for a fact what the death toll would have been if the armed police hadn’t been there? If you don’t, what’s your point?

France has a 10 percent Muslim minority. Some European countries are likely to become Muslim majority in our life times. That is a vastly greater threat than a few hundred years ago. Or even a thousand years ago.

“c) Prosperity will allow contact, and greater information”

And hence, like the Babel fish, cause even greater wars.

“However, Muslims are humans too, and I just don’t believe that they’re intrinsically more religious. Certainly I’ve seen no evidence for this.”

Then you are not looking.

Jack C – “No one should dispute that there’s a big problem with black areas in the US. Neither does anyone sensible argue that American racial history is a factor (not an excuse, a factor).”

No, you just do what the Islamists do – react with outrage and a very thin skin – when someone points it out.

“However, we shouldn’t rush to claim racial superiority.”

I don’t see anyone doing that. You are just assuming it.

“Whites are involved in very few crack killings, however, we should blush at least a little over Fascism and Communism, and the two world wars.”

I don’t see why. Especially as Communism had little to do with, you know, White Christians.

Jack C – “Indeed, and when it came to the crunch, the populace did NOT back the state belief system. And that was that for the Soviet Union.”

But that is not why the Soviet Union collapsed. They never backed the system. The small number of fanatics needed to run the system ceased to believe in it. Then it collapsed.

Jack C – “I know it’s crass and illogical. I was responding to SMFS;s claim that whites are intrinsically and naturally better and more law-abiding than everyone else.”

So you’re lying. As I did not say that.

Jack C – “I haven’t disputed that at all. However, you can’t just take what happens now, out of context and without regard to previous history.”

I think you did dispute it. You are now walking back from what you said because you have been called out on it. But say it you did. What previous history should be regard?

“Black areas in the US are absolutely a problem (my main places of work are Compton, CA, where we have armed security, Chicago, and New Jersey). And yes, these areas are more intimidating than others. However, where Americans have similar backgrounds, outcomes and attitudes are fairly similar regardless of race.”

This is not true. It is especially well documented in areas like education, middle class Black Americans do not share values and behaviours with middle class White Americans. John Ogbu has written extensively on this. Nor do they on things like crime. Although of course when you say “similar backgrounds, outcomes and attitudes” you are stating an obvious and banal truth. People with the same attitudes have the same attitudes. But virtually no Black people have the same backgrounds, outcomes and attitudes as middle class White people.

“A passing knowledge of white attitudes and behaviour towards blacks in the US over time shows that there is blame on both sides.”

No it doesn’t.

Jack C – “Well chaps, I haven’t denied that Islamism is a problem (I’ve said it’s massive), nor have I said that black crime in the US is not disproportionate (I’ve said the opposite).”

You have not said it is massive but you have smeared others for saying so. You have not said that Black crime is disproportionate. But you have smeared me for saying so.

In short you’re full of sh!t. Well, more full than usual.

“What I don’t agree with is arming everyone in the West as I cannot imagine how this will solve the problem.”

Your limited imagination is not anyone else’s problem.

Jack C – “A sense of perspective would help.”

Yeah, don’t know why Black people complain about lynching.

“However, the number of actual attacks within the Western world is actually very small. This may, in part, be due to the significant military action that we’ve taken.”

More Islamist killings per day than all African American lynchings put together in the 20th century. Go on, tell me how Black Americans should have just not bothered.

@Interested: “But it’s possible that someone sees chummy fiddling with his rucksack on the tube, challenges him and blows him away.”

We’d have to redesign the UK transport network to accommodate “incidental” deaths” of bumbling hikers. Or perhaps you’re proposing genocide of clueless tossers who fail to understand the consequences of their shoulder baggage?

“suicide bombers regularly get slotted in other countries before they go bang”

Bloke in Germany – “This is proof positive that you really do just make shit up the whole time.”

You know, if you are going to be an obnoxious little w@nker, you would be better off picking a better claim to object to. As I don’t say that Northern Irish people caused higher gun crime in America. I said that other people have claimed it. It would take me all of three seconds to find a link making that claim as it is, actually, a very common one.

So no, I am not making stuff up, you are just being a w@nker.

This for instance:

Author (and U.S. Senator) Jim Webb puts forth a thesis in his book Born Fighting to suggest that the character traits he ascribes to the Scotch-Irish such as loyalty to kin, extreme mistrust of governmental authority and legal strictures, and a propensity to bear arms and to use them, helped shape the American identity.

But w@nk on.

Bloke in Germany – “If you put all the pro-gun people here, pistol in hand, up against those heavily-armed, trained, practised, callous thugs in Paris, which side do you think would have all the dead bodies?”

Who knows how it would turn out. But that does not matter does it? The point about terrorism is the terror. They win by showing a cowed and frightened population. People who shoot back are not cowed or terrorised. Even if they are not successful.

Interested – “I don’t think anyone wants 60 million weapons – you could restrict it to ex mil, or have SAS level training, or whatever, to keep the numbers down. No-one wants crack dealers and the mentally ill armed, for instance.”

I see no problems with 60 million weapons – except perhaps that is too few. Restricting it to anyone that Margaret Hodge thinks deserves a gun defeats the point. I am happy with crack dealers having guns. And they do anyway. The mentally ill? Not so much. But why? The mentally ill are more likely to kill. People with schitzophrenia are about ten times more likely to kill than normal people. Seems a good reason not to give them a gun. Black Americans are eight to ten times more likely to kill than White Americans. Just saying.

1. So Much for Subtlety, this evening: “As I don’t say that Northern Irish people caused higher gun crime in America. I said that other people have claimed it.”

2. SMFS at the top of this thread, yesterday: “You will print the cartoons, but the Guardian won’t. They gave their editorial pages to the Islamists.”

Which SMFS is telling the truth?

—
2. The Guardian allegation is easy-ish to tackle. I didn’t read yesterday’s Guardian so I can only read today’s. Steve Bell: ‘Why are the fuckers still laughing at us?’ The editorial was another free speech proclamation. Simon Jenkins had a rant. Ed Husain proclaimed his liberal values.

SMFS out of 10 for argument : Zero.

1. Some bonkersness about crime in the USA? One point out of ten for weirdness.

Interested: ‘Issues of scale? Try the Crusades.’
Try as I might. I can’t get exercised about the Crusades. I also don’t hate Normans. You?

No, me neither. My point is that terrorist states can sponsor religious nutters to go and kill people regardless of what religion the nutters profess. And that Muslims have reason to see history as being a story of Christians killing Muslims much more than the other way round.

The solution is not some sort of a pogrom against Muslims in general – it’s nothing to do with them. It’s to stop the state sponsorship. The first step is to reduce our dependence on Saudi oil.

The resultant Department of Preventative Slotting would be colossal and ruinously expensive.

I don’t see why it would have to be.
I would be similar to the DVLA, especially if we use something similar to what I proposed. Copy the system from the DVLA. Relatively cheap and quick.
Already set up for licenses and vehicle (in this case firearm) registration.

Only addition would have to be a computer cross check for criminal behaviour.

PaulB: “And that Muslims have reason to see history as being a story of Christians killing Muslims much more than the other way round.”

Totally false. Islamists attacked and tried to conquer Europe–Charles Martel etc. They occupied Spain until finally booted out. They destroyed the Byzantines (altho it took them a long time) took Constantinople and attacked Europe from the East on numerous occasions–their last hurrah–so far–being 1683. Don’t come this crap about it is all our fault cos the Crusades spooked ’em.

Nor is “state sponsorship” the story. Yeah-salafest pukes are paying a lot of bills but the killing going on is not a mercenary matter. The triggerman in France aren’t off somewhere counting their payoff. They are part of a political structure (disguised as a religion) that tells them to do as they are doing. Agreed most of those born into this system aren’t following in the nutters footsteps. However in any politics it is what the leaders do –not the followers–that’s why they are followers. Mr & Mrs Nazi Germany may not have been too keen on Adolf’s antics if they could have foreseen where it was all going–but that doesn’t mean that they would have stood up at a Nuremberg rally to complain about the peddling of hate. Just so for Mr & Mrs muslim. No one in the Islamic world gives a rats arse what Mrs muslim thinks about anything whatsoever. And even if Mr muslim has the moral fibre to be a lone voice of reason and sanity down the mosque (and likely Gary Cooper could not have felt more alone when the minute hand hit twelve) all they have to do is point at the book cos it is all in there. Kill the unbeliever, take their lands, take their women.

Purported Christians are all goodies and purported Muslims are all baddies. LET’S TURN THEM ALL TO GLASS, WHEREVER THEY ARE, and arm every citizen unless he has a criminal record or mental disorder (what could possibly go wrong).

No because you can’t even comprehend what you read. Get yourself a pair of glasses and go back over it all. Some IQ enhancing drugs might help you as well. Get the strongest you can afford.

As for a well-armed populace–nothing wrong with that whatsoever. We already had that 100+ years ago when our defence policy was “a rifle beside every hearth”. The political scum pissed away the lives of those brave man in WW1. If we had their like today we would not be having debates about whether the scum of the state should allow some of us firearms “licences”–the tyrant’s idea of what freedom is.

Ecks, if you don’t want licensing for automatic firearms I insist you at least have the decency to move to Toxteth or Brixton, preferably next door to a crack house, to enjoy the full range of exciting benefits your policy would bring.

Charlieman, I agree. Also knives, hatchets, sticks, petrol, cars, bricks and hammers. Also remove the hands of all male children at birth. And make them wear padded hats and giant clown feet to avoid injury from butting/kicking.

Interested: Don’t follow your point–crack dealers already have access to whatever firepower they want. Are you saying that the ordinary people of this country are:

A–Morons who would shoot themselves and others by reason of stupidity
B- Nutters who are just waiting for the firepower to kick off?.

We are not the men our Grandfathers were (altho we have the advantage that we are at last slowly beginning thro’ the illusion to the evil that is the state) but I don’t think that A or B is valid.

There are small numbers of nutters but shooting back will get them all sooner or later. Idiots will always be with us but gun accidents may thin them out a bit.Ultimately–as our forefathers proved–an armed society can be an extremely peaceful one. Until govts fucked it all up.

JC: You are saying that the US experience = guns bad. No
All experience–including the very well-armed populace of the old UK (prior to the rising statist/socialist tyranny of modern times) shows that guns are good. Self defence/deterrant to arrogant political scum as well as ordinary criminal scum ( the political is the criminal but that is another posting altogether).

My point is that the risk added as a result of having that chance vastly outweighs the potential benefit.

A perfectly reasonable line to take. Though you might change your mind if you are unfortunate enough to be unarmed and have a psychopathic jihadi hunting you in the office…

I don’t think it is the mark of tyranny to have to register or license firearm use, as long as it remains a “shall issue” by default (obviously excepting violent crims etc) as in the Czech Republic. Similar to a driving licence. It is a matter of public safety. The aim isn’t to stop people driving, but to maintain a minimum safety standard.

A nutty jihadi could do a lot of damage with a large SUV/lorry and a busy street. (hope they don’t figure that out any time soon).

Charlieman – “The Guardian allegation is easy-ish to tackle. I didn’t read yesterday’s Guardian so I can only read today’s. Steve Bell: ‘Why are the fuckers still laughing at us?’ The editorial was another free speech proclamation. Simon Jenkins had a rant. Ed Husain proclaimed his liberal values.”

Yeah, the Guardian does seem to have had a change of heart and purged the Islamists. This is much better than their response to 9-11 or 7-7. Which was, basically, to turn their editorial pages over to Islamists. But notice they do not stray that far from the reservation – Husain still has to blame us. Jenkins blames the French.

“1. Some bonkersness about crime in the USA? One point out of ten for weirdness.”

Thank you. I succeed so often because I work at it.

Jack C – “The number of attacks WITHIN THE WESTERN WORLD”

And so ….. ? Blacks in Chicago shouldn’t have cared about lynchings because there were so few in the North? If only Billie Holiday had realised!

PaulB – “My point is that terrorist states can sponsor religious nutters to go and kill people regardless of what religion the nutters profess.”

They can but they don’t. Any Christian terrorist states? Any Buddhist terrorist states? Pakistan sponsors terror in India. Does India sponsor terror in Pakistan? Terrorism is highly correlated with two ideologies – Islam and Communism. Hard to find examples otherwise.

“And that Muslims have reason to see history as being a story of Christians killing Muslims much more than the other way round.”

They sit in the historic centres of Christianity, in lands traditionally at the centre of Western civilisation, and they claim history is about Christians killing Muslims? No. They are upset because Christians are being uppity and not accepting their position at the bottom of the social order like they should. They are upset because we resist.

“The solution is not some sort of a pogrom against Muslims in general – it’s nothing to do with them. It’s to stop the state sponsorship. The first step is to reduce our dependence on Saudi oil.”

Which state sponsored these terrorists? Saudi Arabia has been strong in condemning them. The problem is Islam. We need to convert as many Muslims to some other faith as possible and build a big wall between us and the rest.

But reducing dependence on middle eastern oil would be good. Frack away!

Interested > Charlieman, I agree. Also knives, hatchets, sticks, petrol, cars, bricks and hammers. Also remove the hands of all male children at birth. And make them wear padded hats and giant clown feet to avoid injury from butting/kicking.

Charlie > As a rational man, I love the bonkersness of Interested & Ecks.

We all do, Charlie, we all do. You stay inside and you’ll be just fine.

Charlieman – “with regard to a serious newspaper or a pillock, we are suggested to follow the ideas of a random pilliock like you.”

No, you are not. You would do well to follow my ideas, that is true. But nowhere do I suggest you do. Instead I point out the historical record of the Guardian – sending a young budding Islamist like Dilpazier Aslam to cover the 7-7 bombing for instance. Publishing endless articles from people like Faisal Bodi, Inayat Bunglawala and Azam Tamimi – all people removed from their Wikipedia page I note. I may be wrong about their views now. I don’t follow the Guardian closely. But their record speaks for itself.

You can accept the reality of that record, or you can deny it. But it is foolish to get upset at me for drawing your attention to it.

Still, if you think the Guardian is a better guide to anything than a random pillock picked at random in the street, more fool you.

“You are a horrible person, and whilst I have strived to keep men alive, because all men need a chance. I never understood a man like you.”

Well, keep working at it. Maybe one day you will break out of your cocoon and finally understand. I have faith in you.

It may be worth mentioning just for the record that the proposal to create a gun culture in the UK like that in the US is insane. We’re not like the US, we’re starting from a fortunate position where there are few guns in circulation – notwithstanding someone’s fantasy upthread that guns materialize by magic along with one’s crack cocaine trading licence.

At a guestimate, if we went to US levels of gun possession, not excluding the criminal fraternity, we might get half the US homicide rate, and all the US gun accident rate. That would be an extra 1000 or so deaths each year. (Not including suicides.)

Islamic terrorists in the UK have committed 53 murders in the last ten years – 52 of them in the suicide bombings in 2005 and one of them the murder of Lee Rigby in 2013.

Charlieman – “nobody will be employing you as an agent. Don’t get excited.”

Thank you Charlie, but I am not looking for a job. Nor am I excited.

I am committed to getting you to make a substantive comment but I don’t think that is going to work out well, is it? You are upset about something. I think it would help you if you could articulate what it is you think is so outrageous in what I said. Get it all out. Face your demon. Etc etc etc.

PaulB – “It may be worth mentioning just for the record that the proposal to create a gun culture in the UK like that in the US is insane.”

I don’t see anyone suggesting we should have a gun culture like the US. I do see people say we should have a gun culture like we did in 1904. Which is sensible.

“We’re not like the US, we’re starting from a fortunate position where there are few guns in circulation”

We are not like the US but we will become more and more like the US as we import people with a radically different culture and a much greater propensity to want, own and use guns. But it is not a fortunate position. It is the product of a government that does not trust us, or think we are responsible adults – a non-democratic position in short. That is a bad place to be.

And you have to distort to make a counter-argument. Interesting. But not surprising.

“At a guestimate, if we went to US levels of gun possession, not excluding the criminal fraternity, we might get half the US homicide rate, and all the US gun accident rate. That would be an extra 1000 or so deaths each year. (Not including suicides.)”

We would likely get no more homicide deaths at all. We are British. That means we don’t shoot people much. We might get more gun accidents. Notice that people who hate guns usually slip suicides into one or other figure. So you ought to at least acknowledge that when discussing the US. After all, we are all on board with suicide right? You know, doctors should be obliged to do it for you and all that. So the most effective means of doing it yourself should not be illegal and no doubt we all agree it is not a problem when people take that route, right?

“Islamic terrorists in the UK have committed 53 murders in the last ten years – 52 of them in the suicide bombings in 2005 and one of them the murder of Lee Rigby in 2013.”

White Supremists have killed precisely no one in the same period. No one since Copeland blew up that club. And yet it does not stop everyone on the Left being absolutely obsessed with them.

But I am curious, what do you think an unacceptable rate of terrorist murder is? How many people would Muslims have to kill, and White children rape, before you think it is a problem? 50 a year? 500? 5,000? At what level should we be concerned?

PaulB: More horseshit. Those–like you-whose cups run over with plans for the better organising of other peoples lives certainly hate private guns.Because they give people the means to force social(ist) engineers to go fuck themselves.

Given the millions of people they have murdered socialists certainly should be kept disarmed. Because the acceptable rate of socialism is also zero.

@Mr Ecks: “Those–like you-whose cups run over with plans for the better organising of other peoples lives certainly hate private guns.Because they give people the means to force social(ist) engineers to go fuck themselves.”

What happened in the Second Spanish Republic? As Orwell observed, none of the participants had the nous to create a fair state. Everyone had guns.

If you mean me the that comment is a great example of your sheer dishonesty.

I made the crack dealers with guns response to Mr Ecks’ suggestion that firearms should be made available with no licensing by the ‘scum of the State’.

In such circumstances then yes, I’m pretty sure crack dealers would be armed. Unless you think they are reasonable people who work in a regulated trade and have no need to enforce obedience from sub dealers/users and no need to defend themselves from rival dealers/the police.

But I didn’t ‘fantasise’ that it would happen, I simply pointed out that that was at least one reason why firearms would and should always remain regulated.

(But we know you’re a liar from your ‘friend’ who ‘thought he could fly after taking acid’ and died when he jumped off a roof. That never happened, so we shouldn’t be surprised at your other lies and distortions.)

Interested: whoa there. The comment I was referring to was this one, not from you: “I am happy with crack dealers having guns. And they do anyway.” In fact it’s apparent from crime statistics that illegal guns are difficult – not impossible but difficult – to get hold of.

Some time ago I asked you to stop repeating the drug death story, for human reasons which I explained, and you agreed. It doesn’t reflect well on you that you’re unable to abide by that. However, your version is wrong in every detail. If you got the basics right you’d be able to find inquest reports online.

> The US has a very much higher gun crime rate than the UK, even if:some indivudual states do not.

Wrong comparison. The comparison to make is what happens to crime rates and violent crime rates — and not just gun crime rates — in one jurisdiction when guns are legalised. The answer is that they decrease. And, yes, there’s always some argument that they’ve decreased for some other coincidental reason. A lot of people believe that about the US. Handily, each US state legalised concealed carry at a different time, and a lot of smaller jurisdictions such as towns and counties did the same thing separately, so we can see that those people believe in well over fifty separate unrelated coincidences which all had coincidentally the exact same effect in different places and at different times. Amazing stuff. But, even if we accept that these gun control advocates are somehow right, their best-case scenario is still merely that legalising concealed carry has no effect whatsoever on crime, not that it increases it.

As I said earlier, if banning a freedom has no effect whatsoever, why ban it?

Not that we really have to compare the British to the Americans in this regard. I think we’re likely to behave more like the Swiss or the Dutch or someone. America has historical problems that we don’t. But, if we do insist that the UK will be just like the US, what that means is that legalising guns will either reduce violent crime or (if you can bare to manipulate the stats hard enough) make no difference at all. This repeated mantra that it will increase violent crime has no evidence whatsoever, even from the people desperately trying to force the existing evidence to produce that message.

I personally find the combination of the British attitude to gun-owning Americans and the popularity of Orlando as a holiday destination hilarious. All these people who are convinced that an armed citizen is necessarily a violent sociopathic redneck just itching to pull the trigger, wandering happily through a state in which around 1 in 20 people are carrying, meeting and chatting with these people, never once twigging.

> we might get half the US homicide rate, and all the US gun accident rate. That would be an extra 1000 or so deaths each year. (Not including suicides.)

> Islamic terrorists in the UK have committed 53 murders in the last ten years

It’s a category error to compare deliberate murders to accident rates. That’s just not how humans think about the world.

For instance, we put up with cars, despite their fairly high accident rate and the amount of carnage we get as a result of having them in our society. We are willing to have things that are useful and dangerous, as long as the danger is accidental. If the problem with cars was that drivers had a pronounced tendency to drive them as fast as possible into crowds, we would ban them.

It is also worth noting that the US homicide rate is not a murder rate. If the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had fought back and killed one of their assailants, that would be one more for the homicide stats, the way the FBI measure it. I for one am not convinced that every homicide is bad.

And that is actually a lot of what happens in the US. Guns change the way humans interact, because their efficacy is not dependent on being big and strong. In gun-free societies, when a big muscular bastard tells you what to do, you generally do it. That’s how we live in the UK’s cities, certainly: the violent scum get to push everyone else around with fuck-all resistance, while the rest of us put up with having to live in a way we don’t want to. Guns are a leveller: they enable the small and weak to tell the big and strong to fuck off. This search term is always instructive: a long list of the old and infirm who, in Britain, would be dead or in hospital, but, in the US, are just fine. This is why, as I said earlier, gun ownership is estimated to prevent at least a million rapes a year in the US. That million is the lower estimate — i.e., the one from the gun control advocates.

So a lot of those homicides are cases of violent criminal thugs being offed by decent citizens defending themselves. Good.

Two points here. One: that we don’t merely care about the number of homicides; we do also care about who’s being killed and why. Two: that what the stats do not show is all the millions of everyday interactions where ordinary people either are or aren’t forced to bend to the will of some criminal thug. There are plenty of people in the UK living in areas where you don’t go out after dark who know exactly what I’m on about.

Those who are part of the UK underworld have no trouble getting a gun if they want one. Most crims are small-timers and don’t need them. Heavy hitters–no problem. It would be hard for a solid citizen to go into a pub (even if he knows the right pub) and get a shooter because crims don’t know him and he could be a cop. They would be most likely to take your money and vanish cos who are you going to complain to?.

If you are in the underworld the guns are there if you want them. Most don’t because they’re in crime for the money and/or because honesty is beyond them. But UKLib and PaulB are talking out of their backside saying that crims have trouble getting guns even if they want them.

The claim I disputed was: “crack dealers already have access to whatever firepower they want.”

If the claim has been refined to, “…and they only want the gun kept under a young boy’s bed that they share with all the other members of the gang,” as opposed to numerous Glocks, Uzis, Tech-9s and AK47s then I withdraw my objection.

2 Therefore, in the unlikely event that you had a mate, and the vanishingly unlikely possibility that he really did die in exactly the sort of cliched way that the Just Say No crowd argued he might, the only people who could possibly identify him are people who also know you, PaulB, in real life, and the only reason they know you is because you have told them your online name.

3 You knew this, and yet you chose to bring up the story of your mate.

4 That’s a pretty average way to behave, if – as you now claim – merely mentioning the very fact that this imaginary guy died in this unbelievably cliched way is going to cause distress to his make-believe family. You clearly didn’t care about their feelings, so why should anyone else? They inhabit your imagination, not anyone else’s.

5 In any case, in the almost inconceivable event that you are telling the truth, how much actual measurable distress is it going to cause to the family of an unnamed guy who fell to his death after taking acid and thinking he could fly to have it reported that he fell to his death after taking acid and thinking he could fly? It’s just a fact. They already know.

Yes, I know what happened yesterday was illegal. This means a lot more effort to get the hardware they need. They can’t just pop into Walmart.

But it also means the law abiding can’t just pop down to Walmart to get the same thing (or have the same thing) to defend themselves. The criminals who want to hurt people can make the effort to tool up and then be safe in the knowledge that they are vastly over-matching virtually anyone who they meet.
We, the law-abiding, unarmed masses, have to wait for the armed police to show up. If I’m lucky my corpse might still be warm when they can be bothered to show up to draw a white line around my remains.

You, when you said “the level of not having guns at all.” That is an imaginary and unattainable level, hence Utopian.

> This means a lot more effort to get the hardware they need.

Yes, which is not what you said at all. There is a world of difference between disallowing criminals access to guns and making it more difficult for criminals to get guns. If you genuinely had some way of achieving the former, no argument from me: go for it. But you don’t. You only have the latter, achieved using a method which also prevents everyone else defending themselves.

> I haven’t spoiled your lunch or anything, so calm down a bit maybe?

Honestly don’t know what you’re on about. I am calm. Are you just upset cause I used italics or something?